On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:16:35 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:49f211c9$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:33:56 -0600, somebody wrote:
>> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
>> > news:49f1ec38@news.povray.org...
> 
>> >> Now I *know* you know that's not what I meant.  I've explained
>> >> before - if you want cable-like speeds, in most markets there is a
>> >> single choice. I can't get anything but Comcast if I want 10 Mbps
>> >> without paying for a dedicated line.  So my choice is to live with
>> >> Comcast's draconian TOS or to use DSL - which gives me a whole 3
>> >> Mbps currently.
> 
>> > So Comcast should be subject to your terms because there happens to
>> > be little alternative in your locality?
> 
>> Can you say "abuse of monopoly power"?  Yes, Comcast should be required
>> to behave in a manner that doesn't permit them to abuse their monopoly,
> 
> That's a very narrow (ego-centric) definition of monopoly on your part.
> The only fast-food restaurant within about 75m of my house is Subway.
> Does that make them a monopoly?

No, because you can *drive* to another location.

One of my friends who lives in the sticks can't get faster service at 
home by driving to town.

Jim

Post a reply to this message